Technology Lab —

KDE and the Document Foundation join Open Invention Network

The KDE e.V. and the Document Foundation have joined the Open Invention …

The KDE e.V. and the Document Foundation (TDF) have both joined the Open Invention Network (OIN) as licensees, expanding the organization's roster of supporters. Their decision to join reflects growing acceptance of the OIN's approach to patent threat mitigation among community-driven open source software projects.

The OIN is an intellectual property holding group that was founded in 2005 by a number of major technology companies for the purpose of defending the Linux platform against patent litigation. The OIN has accumulated a substantial portfolio of broad patents covering a wide range of technical fields. In the event that at a patent infringement lawsuit targets a major component of the Linux platform, the OIN can retaliate by using its own patent portfolio to sue the aggressor. The threat of retaliation serves as a deterrent and can be used to negotiate settlements that are favorable to Linux users and developers.

The OIN offers a compelling market-based solution to insulating Linux from the software patent minefield, but its approach has a number of major limitations. The most significant weakness is that the OIN is powerless to defend against litigation brought by nonpracticing entities—also known as patent trolls. The threat of retaliation doesn't hold any weight against a company that doesn't make any products.

The OIN has been well-received by open source companies, but independent open source developer communities have typically remained distant due to concerns that the group's activities might be construed as validating the patent system, thus muddying the waters of reform advocacy. Sentiment has shifted over the past year as circumstances have made the futility of conventional patent reform efforts increasingly evident.

In the aftermath of the Bilski decision, in which the Supreme Court declined to evaluate the scope of software patentability, prominent software freedom legal scholar Eben Moglen voiced support for the OIN, contending that the failure of reform efforts in Congress and the courts had left industry-based initiatives that work within the constraints of the existing patent system as the only practical way to pursue real-world protection for open source software. He specifically highlighted the OIN as an example of the kind of framework that is needed.

Attracting KDE and TDF as members shows that the OIN is gaining support among rank-and-file open source application developers. Mozilla also joined as a licensee earlier this year. There is a growing sense of acceptance that the OIN is a useful tool, even if it doesn't seal all the gaps. It can be pursued alongside other initiatives in order to devise a multifaceted protective barrier. The OIN itself is an active participant in a handful of related projects, such as the Linux Defenders defensive publishing program.

OIN licensees get royalty-free access to the organization's patents in exchange for a commitment to not assert their own patents against any of the key components of the Linux platform and userspace stack that that are identified by OIN as protected technologies. Because KDE and TDF don't obtain or assert patents, it's not entirely clear yet if their status as OIN licensees achieves anything specific aside from serving as a public endorsement.

The KDE software collection and OpenOffice.org (the application from which TDF's LibreOffice forked) are both already among the projects protected by OIN, so it's likely that the membership status of these groups is largely intended to facilitate greater cooperation.

They mention specifically the patents Novell owned, that was branced off to a 3rd party when Novell was bought last month. Not sure if that mean anything, but there was a lot of KDE people in the former Novell, former SuSE.

There is one "threat of retaliation" that *is* effective against patent trolls: Filing suit to have the patent overturned. Actually, a second threat is filing of an amicus curae brief informing the court that the patent is invalid due to prior art, obviousness, or patents a business method, all of which are reasons for refusal to grant the patent in the first place; such filings are effectively free of cost (compared to a lawsuit). Unfortunatley, the USPTO has never seen a patent it didn't like, as long as the proper filing fee was attached. See http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.html (US Patent number 6368227) which was granted for a method which is clearly ineligible due to literally thousands of years of prior art.

There is one "threat of retaliation" that *is* effective against patent trolls: [...]

This would be, indeed, perfectly valid if the judges that will have to decide this had a sliver of technological literacy. Most of them, however, do not know by which end to hold a mouse.

There is another threat that is valid, and works if enough people are pissed: civil disobedience. If there is a law, or a patent, that you judge retarded, just don't obey it. If enough people do it, it will be simply impossible to enforce it.

There is one "threat of retaliation" that *is* effective against patent trolls: Filing suit to have the patent overturned. Actually, a second threat is filing of an amicus curae brief informing the court that the patent is invalid due to prior art, obviousness, or patents a business method, all of which are reasons for refusal to grant the patent in the first place; such filings are effectively free of cost (compared to a lawsuit). Unfortunatley, the USPTO has never seen a patent it didn't like, as long as the proper filing fee was attached. See http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.html (US Patent number 6368227) which was granted for a method which is clearly ineligible due to literally thousands of years of prior art.

I had heard of the "swinging" patent before, but I had never read it. It's amazing that such a tongue-in-cheek and clearly parodied filing was approved and granted a patent.

In the aftermath of the Bilski decision, in which the Supreme Court declined to evaluate the scope of software patentability, prominent software freedom legal scholar Eben Moglen voiced support for the OIN, contending that the failure of reform efforts in Congress and the courts had left industry-based initiatives that work within the constraints of the existing patent system as the only practical way to pursue real-world protection for open source software.

Well, there is another foolproof solution: get the f--- out the United States.Go live/work in a country with no stupid software patent laws. Or, at least, make sure your project 'headquarter' (aka main server, domain names, legal structure if any, etc) in out of reach of US laws.

If you're not operating from the US, there's no way you can be sued And your FOS (or closed source) softwares will still be available in the US, thanks to Internet knowing no borders.

Problem in the article where it says this: "OIN licensees get royalty-free access to the organization's patents in exchange for a commitment to not assert their own patents against any of the key components of the Linux platform and userspace stack that that are identified by OIN as protected technologies. Because KDE and TDF don't obtain or assert patents, it's not entirely clear yet if their status as OIN licensees achieves anything specific aside from serving as a public endorsement."

Actaully, if you simply read the OIN page about its licensing arrangements, it is perfectly clear what the benefits are of joining OIN. The benefits are NOT limited to OIN patents alone.

OK, so KDE and the Document Foundation have joined OIN as new licensees. That means that KDE and the Document Foundation are now granted a license to use all OIN patents and all licensee patents relating to Linux.

KDE and the Document Foundation are now also granted a royalty-free license to use all Linux-related patents held by all parties on this list, in perpetuity.

That is a lot of patent coverage.

Note the list of other OIN licensees and member includes Novell. This means that KDE and the Document Foundation are now granted a royalty-free license to use in perpetuity all Linux-related patents held by Novell. This includes anything Linux-related out of the 882 patents that Novell is about to sell to CPTN Holdings (Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and EMC).

So, if Apple, Microsoft, Oracle or EMC ever ask KDE or the Document Foundation to purchase a license for any of the Linux-related patents amongst the 882 that Novell is about to sell, then KDE or the Document Foundation can simply say: "no thanks, we already got one". Quote thanks to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

New Scientist described the Australian patent as more absurd, but in that case, the language of the patent was obfuscated, Australia was trying out a new system for an expedited, limited form of patent, and the relevant authorities said that the patent for the wheel probably wouldn't survive a legal challenge. In the case of the US patent for swinging, the language of the patent is perfectly clear, and the patent actually did survive a legal challenge.

I was already convinced that the US patent system was absurd, corrupt, and useless. But this is embarrassing.